I suppose in the vernacular, an elected government can be said to "seize power." Although the only reason you would say it is that they have a single focus, for which they had no mandate, to agitate and force the backers of Israel to think again. In that, Hamas are forcing the issue. That said, Israel would never lift the blockade anyway, as any serious observer would notice. It was there before Hamas were elected.

I am reading Political diaries and by coincidence, one diarist is noting January 2009 when Israel tried bombing a democratically elected government. He notes that The UK voted for a UN resolution for a ceasefire but The USA abstained, the first time we voted differently to The USA regarding Israeli aggression. Hamas said they weren't bound by the ceasefire as they hadn't been consulted. As bad as they are, and as cynical as I am over their aims, over and above the peace that Palestinians crave for, you can't help noticing the arrogance of many Western countries, ignoring elected governments when they don't like them and supporting dictatorships when it suits.

The diarist also notes that Egypt and Saudi Arabia (remembering this was five years ago) did as they were told by The USA in the same way the maharajas and rajas did when we ran India.

Move forward five years and one thing has changed. Israeli atrocities are front page news and that makes politicians sit up and think.

Right now, they are thinking of the latest bombing of a school run by The UN. Obviously, the Israeli militants decided the world wasn't outraged enough when it happened last week so they chose another.

Steve Shaw is right though. I should leave blood to the bloodthirsty. Terrorism to the terrorist sympathisers.

Have you noticed that when you point out how Mudcat is being infiltrated by extremists and bigots, it is they who accuse decent people of the same? Guess which minister of propaganda used that tactic in the '30s?